[kfchimera]

Phee that’s a fantastic signature.

Ranisha, I’m caught up on Grimm and looking forward to it.  I did make the mistake of peeking at online fandoms about it–woah nelly!  Is it just an internet thing that mean, flirtatious characters need to be coddled and hugged and good, compassionate but willing to stand up for themselves type characters are “boring” and need to be killed?   Because I’m sensing a pattern, that’s all I’m saying, and if I want to keep enjoying Grimm–I think I better stay away from reading what people think should happen or what they think happened.  Maybe I just stumbled on the wrong forum but after what happened with OUAT, I kind of don’t think so.

As I see interviews straggling out from Adam and Eddy, I have to admire their ability to talk out of both sides of their mouth.  It’s really an art.    Like this gem, we don’t write ships, but then in an interview when asked if the core characters would be pushed to the side, they answer (and its in quotes) that Rumple and Belle, Hook and Emma, Robin and Regina and Snow and Charming will (I’m paraphrasing now) get development. They didn’t say all our core characters, or just list the names in general, or talk in general we have a larger story that of course will impact the lives of our (then list them all, including Henry).  Nope.  They listed couples.  Later in another interview, they talk about how Rumple and Hook ‘s “detente” will come to an end–interesting choice of words, to suggest they have not actually stopped hostility towards each other, they just backed off for a temporary time.  Another interview talked about Henry and Regina having a big upcoming plot.   Then they’ve teased some things for Elsa and Emma–in short, there was absolutely ZERO need to push the whole “its a show about couples” but they knew the audience of that particular interviewer, so that’s what the pushed there.  Then when people complain about shipping and the focus on romance and all–oh no, there’s plenty more.  Tah dah, both sides of their mouth work to say what they think we want to hear.  ALl I know is, their track record tells me what they care about writing, where they devote the most scenes and what ends up being the ploys of their villains. 

I was musing today that the writers could have brought Lancelot back as the pixie dust soulmate–a guy who has a sense of honor, a backstory with Snow, and instead of having a loving wife and kid–he would have had a paramour married to another man–a situation that didnt’ end happily. Now there’s a second chance at love I could honestly have rooted to see.  Instead, we get to root for Regina to break up a marriage and/or for a kid to lose his mother somehow, someway.  We’re supposed to comfort ourselves that “it was always supposed to happen that way”–but who made that choice? The writers.  Who killed off Neal (see I’m trying to talk about Neal, I’m sorry I know this veered way off course for the thread)?  The writers have a slant to what they write, and whatever they tell us their intentions are, and whatever they may have initially been when they signed up various actors for arcs that went nowhere–where they end is always in the pile of cheap melodrama.

Speaking of cheap melodrama–I applaud RG for that Love and Romance, what’s the message thread–you did a beautiful job of setting up a discussion that almost could manage to avoid the shipper bias that usually infests any attempt to talk about these things.  That thread basically covers why I said I feel about the current relationships in the show more or less the same–there’s really something off and unsettling in all of them if you poke hard enough.  The question is, can you enjoy the dynamic and ignore the previous history and context?  Can you watch OUAT like it is a Twinkie–tasty little confection if you ignore its lack of nutritional value?  I don’t think there IS a message–at least, there’s an outward candy shell of a message but the actual way they write these relationships falls off the rails sometimes because they also just can’t help themselves from going for the big twists and shocking moments.

I came across this review, and I find it interesting.  OUAT is the Best Worst Show You’re Watching   I agree with a lot said there–particularly about how the show does better when it DOES NOT take itself seriously.  In the comments, someone mentioned that review special with Adam and Eddy, and how seriously they talk about everything–that’s the problem.  It’s their tone.  One second they’re laughing hah hah about something they wrote on twitter, then the next they’re putting the serious face on to deal with fans who take offense.  If they think they’re writing something one click above the little shorts they do for Comic Con–one step before broad farce, then fine.  We aren’t supposed to take it seriously, and we’re SUPPOSED to laugh at how outrageous some things are.  Emma’s hand waiving in the air, saying she will avenge August–then promptly more or less forgetting all about him.

So I suppose if they’re aware of how they contradict themselves, does it make it better? I don’t know.

 

 

[kfchimera]

Fan Pandering, PR and Marketing, that is ALL  it is about anymore.  Adam’s goal is to pump up  the premier numbers, so they can show that to executives /marketing advertisers and hope fans will stick around past the glitz and pomp of Frozen.  So he wants to be sure to enrage and thus engage the base of hardcore fans who blow up social media, which means in turn, trying to get an emotional response out of  CS and SQ fans.   He wants to inspire people to tweet, to vote in polls and make graphics and do all the free advertising  fans will do when they’re in the zone of thinking such activities might matter in some way.  So its a win-win for him to  type  #swanfire and because if it lures back any fans who liked Neal and rooted for him to earn back Emma’s trust, good, and  otherwise, its kind of like cracking a whip on a slow moving horse, riles up the fans who thought everything was going great, makes them sweat for a brief moment.

The Swan Necklace thing, that too is probably meaningless because its just a symbol of Emma, and its a sad statement really that they have nothing for Belle or Emma that isn’t tied in significant ways to their romantic relationships.  Emma’s worn her circle necklace from the start, but that hasn’t been imbued with meaning of some kind–like, maybe the first thing she bought for herself off her first bounty.  Or maybe  the first thing she stole.  Heck, even Owen gave Regina a key chain –why have we never seen Henry give Emma some thing that becomes a talisman for her ( Owen/Regina was  totally creepy, but I’m saying if you’re going to have an object of significance  in this story, you might expect one to pop up for a relationship that’s been portrayed as magically and thematically  important, even defining for Emma as a character, that is motherhood).  Snow has a bow and arrow, Charming his sword–and–we’ve seen Emma wave her guns around, but somehow,  they aren’t her symbol.

I loved Macy’s theory–and if I were GA or a hardcore “have faith” shipper, I probably would be trying to make sense of things along those lines–but I’m really a more critical audience member.  So I’m not sure what the patterns mean, but there are no shortage of patterns to see in this show and maybe that’s just something like the Rorshach test, a condition of human cognition to try to make sense of randomness.

In Season 1, the writers had a “moral compass” character in  Archie “cricket” Hopper, but by Season 2, they ran out of story for him.   He was demoted to recurring then to random guest star by season 3.  In Season 2, they promoted Ruby/Red, with a hope to expand her character, before they got busy on a new direction that had no room for her in their story (the actress’s paraphrased words of the showrunner’s words).  I wouldn’t say she was precisely a moral compass type, but there was something in her that despite seeing darkness had her generally being a good sort of person.  Season 3 of course, gave us  the promise of an expanded story for Neal,  another person who had a hard life but remained basically good–and that too was not a story the writers wanted to focus upon.  So I’m not holding my breath for anything good for Will/Socha to come out of his inclusion in Season 4, but maybe the Knave will work better to create challenges for the main characters without being a  drag on the story for the writers   .  I don’t think the writers knowingly set out to write it this way, but they are limited somewhat by the characters they’ve chosen as their main ones, the way they frame the narrative so much on “misunderstood” villains, romance and all that.

So its easier for the writers to see which way the fan winds blow, then craft a story around what they think will pull in viewers–but harder if they try to make sure that new bit of story really tracks with the choices they’ve made to focus on various characters/objects/themes in previous seasons.  Taken as a whole then, the story meanders a good deal on things that become insignificant, while not having time to devote to characters/interactions that ought to have been more important and significant given later events.  I find it frustrating as a viewer–but only because I’m trying to make sense of things rather than just watching and forgetting previous events selectively as they fit or do not with  the new narrative direction.

 

 

“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?” -- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass

[kfchimera]

I am on the same page with Ranisha so much I am in the same sentence.  Let Neal return as the worst big bad ever, you know whatever bad character is in what ever 2015 film is on Disney drawing board yet to be released, unless it is a flop.  In that case, try to find some classic character to use that Disney now owns that they need to promote, and say Neal is some how that character too.  The key though, he has to be really really sad about the bad things, but only through expressions, no apologies or admitting guilt unless kind of  forced into it.  If you apologize and take responsibility well that means you are guilty not misunderstood, better to be defensive and blAme others for “making” him do things,  That plus an evil girlfriend like Ma leficient ought to do it, especially if we have some more twists in the family tree like oh, he is dating his stepmom’s mother.  Perfect!

“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?” -- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass

[kfchimera]

That article explains so much.  OUAT is no family show, not any more than Scandal, Revenge or Pretty Little Liars are.  They are “emotional dramas” designed to primarily appeal to younger woman, something I have seen ABC network people say is a target for their branding.  By younger I mean roughly 16 to 36, but obviously some skew older or younger and there is cross gender appeal too.  I am not someone who likes those other shows, nor did I expect that type of ethos in this  show, but now that it has turned into it, my interest has waned.  Perhaps the writer of the article feels the same so he calls it blah, but the real problem is that it used to be a family show with heart and now it is something that is more of a guilty pleasure show–and it is not guilty or pleasurable enough so it comes off blah, but is no longer  really about subjects appealing to kids as it is so intently driven by shipping.  I cannot imagine letting my six year old watch this thing–would not let her watch Grimm either because it would be scary and too mature, but ONCE plays with Disney characters and it is like putting a cartoon character on a pack of smokes.  It is not for kids, and it is not really healthy stuff either but at least something like Scandal is branded appropriately to what it is about.  So the people who watch know to expect just about anything, you do not dress it up in grander notions of hope and family, what life is about, it is just OMG to OMG moment.

“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?” -- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass

[kfchimera]

RG, you said something in that last post that captures exactly how I feel.  If you are enjoying the show the way it is, especially if you did not really like or watch it in Season 1 or 2, then you do not really understand what it feels like to lose “your” show, and have it transform into something you would not have most likely paid so much attention to at all.  It is like this great restaurant you loved because it had vegan gourmet meals for you, until it turned into a steak house where the only option is the iceberg lettuce they use really for garnishes.  While I can appreciate that the steakhouse formula sells well and tons of folk are ecstatic, it is like there are already so many of those types of places.  Shows with anti heroes are a dime-a-dozen, soapy, sudsy “emotional” drama too.  Closely plotted, imaginative fantasy dramas that showcase good people doing good things for good reasons well that is thinner on the ground.

Phee– so true, I bet the writers do not even realize that there are any discrepancies between what Jones says and what we saw him experience.  Just like they claim Regina did nothing wrong in taking advantage of Graham ‘s memory curse to enter into a relationship with him.

. It does not surprise me to see speculation that the whole point of Belle backstory will be to explain (invent and retcon) why  she would think she can still be a good person herself while covering and forgiving more and more of Rumple’s acts of  dark magic, or why she no longer cares so much about the right thing but just the right thing for love

“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?” -- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass

[kfchimera]

More than anything, it is the “lolz” he died, time for fun attitude of the writers  that is shocking.  Graham dying is something they did to put a knife in the fandom heart, by shattering Emma and bolstering our understanding of the malice and menace still present in Regina, even if she was not attired in the trappings of The Evil Queen.  Neal’s death on the other hand was a cheap ploy by the writers to bring Rumple back, to justify a sudden hurry in Emma to find a new boyfriend in Jones and to basically tell us Henry and his fairytale is no longer important.  It is all about what misunderstood villains, and by season four, they will just be called “damaged people”, the same as the former heroes.  No one cares about the right thing, honor, compassion, truth–just unless it looks good and works to get them what they want in the moment.

If the writers have depth to add though, it will come from showing Rumple, Emma and others unravel in various ways without Neal.  We saw glimpses in the NL arc of that, so if the writers played out those themes I would think his death had meaning but right now it is more like August–get this guy out of the plot we wish we were writing all along ASAP!

Slurpeez, excellent post up there.

“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?” -- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass

[kfchimera]

I found a forum where people were discussing the article and found this bit interesting.  The author commented to explain his thoughts.  It is A Matt ter of degree, where some amount of open ended storytelling  is ok but it is bad when you try to suggest it was all part of some master planned narrative, then devote episodes trying to make it fist or explain it.  The plot devices and plot holes get increasingly worse, as do the characters as they get more inconsistent.   Someone compared  such shows to the Winchester mystery house,  where the only real plan was to just keep building.   The writers feel the pressure so they bring in other characters and writers to keep adding, but goodness knows if it makes sense, but it can be entertaining.  

http://www.metafilter.com/129360/The-Cosmology-of-Serialized-Television”

Article writer here. I appreciate the discussion! Just a few points where I wanted to clarify my own position.

the fact that television is uniquely suited to long-form visual narratives is a very good reason to attempt them and to refuse to acquiesce to the prevailing conditions in the US that makes them very difficult to manage.

I think I’m in agreement here too, as long as circumstances permit it. The Wire worked out pretty well. The British series Utopia is the best thing I’ve seen in quite a while, tying up enough ends while leaving enough for a second season. IF the second season matches it, it will be quite an achievement.

I think really where Veronica Mars succeeded was that was made up of smaller overlapping arcs which for the most part got wrapped up within a season of when they started. This kept the heavy continuity confined to more manageable chunks.

Agree completely. I would have spent more time praising it if I’d had the space. Rob Thomas & John Enbom seem to be so brilliantly fluent with genre conventions (see Party Down as well) that they should be entrusted with a prestige show long before David Milch ever gets to touch one again.

Some shows failed to end well, that’s for sure, but in the meantime they entertained.

I agree completely, and I praised a number of them–St Elsewhere and 12 oz Mouse, for example. Someone brought up Arrested Development, which qualifies as well. My criticism is precisely that shows are spending more and more time on the part that doesn’t entertain: building up the eschatological mythology tease.

Actually, I liked 12 oz Mouse’s ending.

maybe long-term plotting isn’t that big of a deal

It may not be, but if it’s not, shows shouldn’t act like it is. My article was about bad faith, not aesthetics.

But for what it’s worth (not much), I enjoyed the middle 3 seasons of B5 more than the last 3 seasons of the Sopranos, which says *something* about the ability of plotting to compensate for deficient acting, dialogue, characters, and special effects.

I cut this paragraph from an already-too-long article, but since it relates to the discussion–

“It worked out nicely for The Wire, whose underrated fifth season was only hampered by the need to bring all plotlines to closure simultaneously. Contrast Babylon 5, where the threat of cancellation led series mastermind J. Michael Straczynski to tie up the main plot at the end of its fourth season. When unexpected renewal came, he was left only with insubstantial loose ends to spin out into an aimless fifth season. In contrast, the fortuitous cancellation of Joss Whedon’s Dollhouse led him to compress five planned seasons of plot into a dozen episodes, making for a remarkably substantial second season after a wretched first.”

I’ve actually used the Winchester Mystery House as an analogy for his “Expansionist” classification

I love that!
posted by waggish at 3:24 PM on June 24, 2013 [6 favorites] “

 

“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?” -- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass

[kfchimera]

Slurpeez, your post has all that I thought and more in reaction to that article, so I’m glad you found it as interesting and applicable to OUAT as  I did.  It does make me feel in a weird way more resigned and accepting of the turn this show took, in a “it’s happened before and it will happen again” (The BSG mantra, hah) sort of way.I deleted my twitter when I felt the show was taking that turn past the point of no return, with what I saw as a putting on the water skis to jump the shark sort of moment, right after 315.  I watched about 3 more episodes though, until 318 and then decided it wasn’t worth even DVRing .    I don’t want to be part of a fandom movement to change anything–I just enjoy having a place to express what I felt with others who sort of feel the same.
As for Extant–goodness, spoilers people!  I know, my fault for being behind on watching it, but as a result, I heard the guy astronaut (Kryger?) say “He ate the baby jesus” instead of “He ain’t the baby jesus.” My husband was so confused by why I thought he said ate. 

“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?” -- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass

[kfchimera]

Oh I love the snark, and really we are as much denouncing modern scripted TV as anything….http://theamericanreader.com/the-cosmology-of-serialized-television/

It is not just this show.  I should not have expected more but once, I did.

“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?” -- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass

[kfchimera]

More perfect Gifs.  I agree, hope is as gone as Estelle and her thoughtful podcasts, back when the writers seemed more open to long explanations rather than relying on no spoilers and vague sound bites, your interpretation, keep watching.

“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?” -- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking-Glass

[Author]

Posts